PETER AND JIM, THE HOBBIT WAS GREAT

[Mark Phelan]

Just saw it for the first time in 3D HFR.

I honestly do not see any issues with the higher frame rate. If I were allowed a gripe, it would be that it was it was only in 2K.

The film felt like a total immersive experience. The 3D was the best I've ever seen. The images were sharp and clear, but not video-y as some want to describe. It really didn't seem that different from 24fps, other than clearer. I did not have any issues with motion, other than Mr. Jackson really likes to show whip pan during fight scenes. The images were perfect, smooth and delicate in their detail.

The story was great, the acting superb and was just the film I had hoped it was going to be. So looking forward to number two and three. Gollum was incredible. Much better than LOTR. The audience was eating him up, laughing at most everything he said. All of the acting was very engaging.

Great movie.

 

[Carlos Reyes]

Just saw it in 3D 48 FPS, agree with everything you said, for the first time 3D worked for me. They did an amazing job, can't wait for 2 and 3.

 

[Elliott Balsley]

I also saw it in 3D HFR, in an "ETX" theater. I must say, I didn't like the HFR. During movement, it reminded me of the 120hz "motion flow" junk we keep seeing on new TVs. It felt weird and drew me out of the story. Dolby Atmos was excellent though.

 

[paulherrin]

Just saw it for the first time in 3D HFR.

I honestly do not see any issues with the higher frame rate. If I were allowed a gripe, it would be that it was it was only in 2K.

The film felt like a total immersive experience. The 3D was the best I've ever seen. The images were sharp and clear, but not video-y as some want to describe. It really didn't seem that different from 24fps, other than clearer. I did not have any issues with motion, other than Mr. Jackson really likes to show whip pan during fight scenes. The images were perfect, smooth and delicate in their detail.

The story was great, the acting superb and was just the film I had hoped it was going to be. So looking forward to number two and three. Gollum was incredible. Much better than LOTR. The audience was eating him up, laughing at most everything he said. All of the acting was very engaging.

Great movie.

thank you...

dude, come talk to us in jim's thread. it's about to get real over there. lot's of naysayers... no worries, they won't bite... lost their dentures again.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Mark, i agree some of it was great. You'll see more of my response on the other thread but basically the combo of High Resolution and HFR just doesn't always work for me in this movie. There have been other movies I have gone to see where I knew going in I would be paying attention to the technical side - The Social Network for example. After five minutes, could care less it was shot on RED. Just wanted to watch the story. I knew The Hobbit and the HFR would be a success for me if after a few minutes I was totally immersed in the story. Unfortunately, i almost walked out. But did make a good choice to stay because there are some amazing things to marvel at later on, so despite an overall disappointment I came away with some positive feelings as well, and more interested to see how this can be improved.

I respect everyone else's opinions though. We all literally see the world differently, so it's no surprise we are experiencing a lot of different reactions from fellow Redusers.

 

[Mark Phelan]

I started a different thread simply because I felt a congratulatory note was going to be buried among those discussing their gripes about the changes that were made for this film. From what a lot of folks were saying, I was expecting to go in and watch some crappy video presentation that looked like I shot with my first Panasonic camcorder in 1982. The visceral reaction some were having combined with the blog-mentality of piling on was becoming onerous to read. I simply enjoyed the movie.

I went to see the 3D version first since I knew my wife wouldn't want to see that one. Neither of us care much about 3D, to us it is gimmicky, not immersive. Having said that, this was the best 3D experience I've had in a movie. Avatar was lost on me, couldn't figure out why everyone was giving glowing reports of how wonderful it was. I would not be sad if 3D simply went away, again. I don't enjoy wearing the glasses and I'm not about to do this.

But the bigger discussion about the HFR/48fps simply nonplussed me. I couldn't see what all the fuss was about. It did NOT have any ill-effect. On the contrary, I actually liked the non-blur motion. It did not seem to stutter or staccato for me. That's why I'd like to see it in a 48fps non-3D version. My conjecture is that since it's a perfect multiple of 24 and not 60, it made the motion fluid. That plus the normal RED "look" made for a very smooth and creamy appearance that I actually enjoyed. I like sharp images to be sharp and would love to see this in 4K. It kills me that our local AMC theater is an all 4K theater and has been since they opened several years ago, but they have yet to actually show a 4K movie. What is wrong with that picture?

So again, to Mr. Jackson and Mr. Jannard, my appreciation for a job well-done.

 

[Kevin Wild]

Thought it looked great. Now as far as the story goes...not a fan of ending it without any resolution whatsoever. They might as well as had a big "to be continued" across the screen at the end.

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

HFR in stereo made me feel like super high, out of my mind. It makes some people sick to the stomach, though, I'm not trying to deny that. It's obviously not for every movie theater or every movie, say Lincoln would probably look ridiculous in HFR 3D. However, I look forward to whatever Cameron and Trumbull are doing on their 60fps+ sci-fi projects.

 

[paulherrin]

Thought it looked great. Now as far as the story goes...not a fan of ending it without any resolution whatsoever. They might as well as had a big "to be continued" across the screen at the end.

there most certainly was a resolution of at least the secondary minor-chord. think about the difference in the characters between the beginning and the end. that being said... they sparked a new flame right at the end. but it's a saga - think 1,001 Arabian Nights - every end is a new beginning.

 

[Paul Harb]

Right because the issue is that even though the MAJORITY or moviegoers DO NOT like 48fps for a feature, even though they dont know a thing about the tech, and even though there is science behind why the brain doesnt accept it for fictional narrative....forget all that, its because we are just old and dont know any better...thats it. Gimme a break...

thank you...

dude, come talk to us in jim's thread. it's about to get real over there. lot's of naysayers... no worries, they won't bite... lost their dentures again.

 

[Paul Harb]

Did Jim work on the film?

I started a different thread simply because I felt a congratulatory note was going to be buried among those discussing their gripes about the changes that were made for this film. From what a lot of folks were saying, I was expecting to go in and watch some crappy video presentation that looked like I shot with my first Panasonic camcorder in 1982. The visceral reaction some were having combined with the blog-mentality of piling on was becoming onerous to read. I simply enjoyed the movie.

I went to see the 3D version first since I knew my wife wouldn't want to see that one. Neither of us care much about 3D, to us it is gimmicky, not immersive. Having said that, this was the best 3D experience I've had in a movie. Avatar was lost on me, couldn't figure out why everyone was giving glowing reports of how wonderful it was. I would not be sad if 3D simply went away, again. I don't enjoy wearing the glasses and I'm not about to do this.

But the bigger discussion about the HFR/48fps simply nonplussed me. I couldn't see what all the fuss was about. It did NOT have any ill-effect. On the contrary, I actually liked the non-blur motion. It did not seem to stutter or staccato for me. That's why I'd like to see it in a 48fps non-3D version. My conjecture is that since it's a perfect multiple of 24 and not 60, it made the motion fluid. That plus the normal RED "look" made for a very smooth and creamy appearance that I actually enjoyed. I like sharp images to be sharp and would love to see this in 4K. It kills me that our local AMC theater is an all 4K theater and has been since they opened several years ago, but they have yet to actually show a 4K movie. What is wrong with that picture?

So again, to Mr. Jackson and Mr. Jannard, my appreciation for a job well-done.

 

[paulherrin]

i heard he provided some kind of camera support. or something like that.

How Jim Jannard Made the Film Possible - Interview with Peter Jackson

 

[Wil Wong]

The STORY:
I thought the movie was great. Having not known the Hobbit story (other than the cartoon), I quite enjoyed it. It wasn't as fast pace at LOTR which I also had no problems with. I do agree that we didn't see that much of why Bilbo went on the adventure. I hint that he longed for adventure would have been nice.

HFR:
I admit it started feeling like the 120hz on TVs and yes at first I thought I was watching a BBC drama, but I did forget about it over time. The make-up made me have second takes on the face but same, forgot about it over time. The clarity and motion I loved. I choose clarity over vague blurry any day...mind you, I saw the film in 3D. That punch out might have made things stand out more. Curious if I 2D would have made everything too clear and thus nothing stands out.

3D:
Never was a fan. I like the gimmick for the first few minutes but then I forget about it. What annoys me throughout is wearing the glasses and the darkening of the movie through them. Hate 3D.

Overall:
The Red Technology did an awesome job. Whether or not the HFR catches fire, who knows. I'm just glad we had the technology to do the tests and see the options. Great job Jim, Peter and Teams.

 

[Carlos Reyes]

Right because the issue is that even though the MAJORITY or moviegoers DO NOT like 48fps for a feature, even though they dont know a thing about the tech, and even though there is science behind why the brain doesnt accept it for fictional narrative....forget all that, its because we are just old and dont know any better...thats it. Gimme a break...

Not sure what "science" you're referring too... But everybody in the theatre I was in left talking about how awesome the experience was, maybe the human brain works differently down here in miami

I think HFR is an awesome choice to have for 3D epic/adventure/fantasy.sci-fi films. Choices are always good, it took a long time for color to catch on in film, with a lot of people against it. Just saying. Those that dont like HFR can watch it in traditional 3D or 2D.